The Madras High Court’s Justice N. Anand Venkatesh slammed the police officials for issuing a summons to the Advocate representing a party in violation of Sections 91 and 160 of the CrPC
The court stated that the order was made without application of mind, and that such issuance of summons impinges on an Advocate’s stature. The court took serious note of the police’s attitude and recklessness in sending the summons to the Petitioner’s Counsel.
Mr. A Sankar filed the contempt petition on the grounds that the respondent had failed to comply with the Court’s order dated 18.01.2019 directing the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representations. The petitioner had requested that his name be removed from the history sheet.
The court issued the above directive in accordance with the guidelines outlined in Sabari v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madurai City and Others (2018).
The petitioner claimed that he had served the respondent with a legal notice for contempt, and that upon receipt of the legal notice, a Summons was issued to the petitioner’s counsel and to the petitioner himself.
The court also noted that the respondent’s action in sending summons to the petitioner was improper, as it has been repeatedly held that a Summon can be issued only during the course of an investigation after a FIR is registered under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.
The court observed that there was no need for the respondent police to issue a summons, and that such issuance contradicts the intent of the Court’s orders.
The Government Advocate stated that the respondents will be instructed to withdraw the summons and send a personally written letter to the Advocate apologising for his error.
The court took note of this submission and directed the respondent to return to court on the next date to show compliance.